arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.04348

When Is Fresh AI Stock Analysis Worth It? Allocating a Limited Research Budget Across Price Updates, Deep Forecast Refreshes, and Editorial Reviews of Top Stock Picks

Russlan Ramdowar
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Must long-horizon AI investment research be rewritten every time stock prices move? Using 8,120 production reports on the same 203 stocks across four iPulse AI batches, we compare repricing existing targets, guarding them against price shocks, mechanically resetting old forecast growth, and generating fresh multi-agent reports. Ten matched configurations represent seven investment frameworks. Our primary economic evaluation selects Top 10 USD portfolios using one-year forecasts. Across two unchanged-model windows, guarded reuse averages 2.25%, versus 1.66% for SPY and 4.77% for fresh reports, after modeled trading costs and reference compute charges on a USD 100,000 account. Guarded reuse beats SPY in all three short windows, including the model-change transition. Extending the first holding window to nearly six months reverses the result: guarded reuse returns -11.26%, fresh reports +9.12%, and SPY +3.46%, motivating the thesis half-life question. Supporting quarter-forecast diagnostics show that mechanically re-anchoring old growth paths closes 98% of the MAE improvement over fixed targets, yet Fresh and Reset share only 1-4 of their Top 10 stocks. At Top 30, the unchanged-model portfolio comparison instead favors guarded reuse (4.17% versus 1.88%). Endpoint and concentration tests reveal the influence of horizon choices and exceptional winners. Nine production editions show substantial between-edition turnover, while every final editorial screen retains its own incoming list. Measured token workloads connect refresh costs to shared capital and realized break-even budgets. The resulting architecture separates continuous price monitoring from episodic thesis rebuilding and targeted editorial evidence checks.

Explore related subjects

cs.MA

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Russlan Ramdowar. 2026-11-03. When Is Fresh AI Stock Analysis Worth It? Allocating a Limited Research Budget Across Price Updates, Deep Forecast Refreshes, and Editorial Reviews of Top Stock Picks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04348

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MAS-Loop: Beyond One-Shot Orchestration towards Self-Evolving Multi-Agent Systems

Training-time multi-agent system (MAS) design seeks to learn reusable orchestration policies, yet prevailing approaches remain largely one-shot: an Orchestrator generates a system but only observes and learns from its terminal outcome. This paradigm discards execution trajectories that expose system-level failures and contain fine-grained information beyond the terminal outcome, leaving no direct basis for revising the source MAS, evaluating the updated MAS, or learning from the resulting contrast. To this end, we introduce MAS-Loop, an execution-grounded framework that closes this feedback loop by coupling an Orchestrator with a trajectory-conditioned Refiner. For each task, the Orchestrator constructs and executes a source MAS to obtain an outcome score and an intermediate trajectory. Conditioned on the trajectory, the Refiner localizes an actionable failure, formulates a trajectory-grounded diagnosis, and proposes a bounded patch to the agents, information flow, or execution configuration. The executable updated MAS is re-executed on the same task to measure its realized outcome under stochastic execution. This pair-MAS comparison provides complementary learning signals: the Orchestrator learns to generate strong systems with fewer recoverable failures, whereas the Refiner learns to expose and repair observed weaknesses, thereby driving policy-level co-evolution across training iterations. Experiments show that MAS-Loop achieves the strongest overall performance among the evaluated baselines, with consistent gains from refinement across all evaluated benchmarks. The co-evolution process also yields MAS-JudgeCorpus, a dataset of execution-grounded source-updated pairs with orchestration- and trajectory-level supervision, which can provide the community with support for MAS reward modeling and trajectory-aware investigation.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

AttriSwarm: Orchestrating Agent Swarms for Cross-Page Visual Attribution

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) increasingly address knowledge-intensive tasks by integrating evidence scattered across multiple document pages into a final answer. Because such answers are synthesized from many pages, the link between the answer and its supporting visual evidence can become obscured, hindering verification and trust. Cross-page visual attribution is therefore essential: it requires identifying the supporting pages and localizing fine-grained evidence regions within them, thereby making multi-page reasoning transparent and auditable. Existing approaches either process multiple pages jointly or iteratively refine evidence within a single trajectory, risking cross-page context pollution and, for interactive methods, substantial sequential overhead. We introduce \textbf{AttriSwarm}, an agent-swarm framework that assigns these concerns to separate roles: a leader handles global cross-page reasoning, while subagents perform page-wise attribution in isolation and in parallel. To support training and evaluation, we construct \textbf{AttriDoc}, a cross-page QA dataset linking supporting pages to their annotated evidence regions, and use it for role-specific training of AttriSwarm, improving answer accuracy, page-level $F_1$, and region-level IoU over its training-free counterpart by an average of 18.94, 29.34, and 23.04 percentage points, respectively, across three open-source backbones and three datasets.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Can Network Models of Science Do Without Pluralist Agents?

Science is a process of useful models being proven wrong time and again, but despite its many flaws, it somehow works. Why is this? Paul Feyerabend argued that it works because people dare to hold and defend incompatible rival theories against the accepted one, since a theory's failures often lead to its abandonment in the presence of a more accurate or simpler alternative. He called this view theoretical pluralism. We introduce a theoretical and experimental model in which this can be examined. It compares communities of pluralist agents, which can hold rival theories side by side and maintain beliefs within and between those theories, with communities of monist agents, which can only incorporate what they hear or observe into a single model of their own. In a multi-agent variational inference setting, our experimental demonstrations illustrate how communities with rival theories can go through periods of uncertainty followed by a shift in the theories they hold true, how the information that is communicated between communities affects beliefs when those communities make different observations about the world, and how sharing support for theories and sharing beliefs within them contribute differently to collective belief dynamics.

cs.MA↗